1,080 research outputs found

    What did Hadropithecus eat, and why should paleoanthropologists care?

    Get PDF
    Over 40 years ago, Clifford Jolly noted different ways in which Hadropithecus stenognathus converged in its craniodental anatomy with basal hominins and with geladas. The Malagasy subfossil lemur Hadropithecus departs from its sister taxon, Archaeolemur, in that it displays comparatively large molars, reduced incisors and canines, a shortened rostrum, and thickened mandibular corpus. Its molars, however, look nothing like those of basal hominins; rather, they much more closely resemble molars of grazers such as Theropithecus. A number of tools have been used to interpret these traits, including dental microwear and texture analysis, molar internal and external morphology, and finite element analysis of crania. These tools, however, have failed to provide support for a simple dietary interpretation; whereas there is some consistency in the inferences they support, dietary inferences (e.g., that it was graminivorous, or that it specialized on hard objects) have been downright contradictory. Cranial shape may correlate poorly with diet. But a fundamental question remains unresolved: why do the various cranial and dental convergences exemplified by Hadropithecus, basal hominins, and Theropithecus exist? In this paper we review prior hypotheses regarding the diet of Hadropithecus. We then use stable carbon and nitrogen isotope data to elucidate this species' diet, summarizing earlier stable isotope analyses and presenting new data for lemurs from the central highlands of Madagascar, where Hadropithecus exhibits an isotopic signature strikingly different from that seen in other parts of the island. We offer a dietary explanation for these differences. Hadropithecus likely specialized neither on grasses nor hard objects; its staples were probably the succulent leaves of CAM plants. Nevertheless, aspects of prior hypotheses regarding the ecological significance of its morphology can be supported. This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Godfrey, L. R., Crowley, B. E., Muldoon, K. M., Kelley, E. A., King, S. J., Best, A. W. and Berthaume, M. A. (2016), What did Hadropithecus eat, and why should paleoanthropologists care?. Am. J. Primatol. , 78: 1098-1112. , which has been published in final form at 10.1002/ajp.22506. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions

    Measuring health-related quality of life in chronic headache: A comparative evaluation of the Chronic Headache Quality of Life Questionnaire and Headache Impact Test (HIT-6).

    Get PDF
    OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality and acceptability of a new headache-specific patient-reported measure, the Chronic Headache Quality of Life Questionnaire (CHQLQ) with the six-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), in people meeting an epidemiological definition of chronic headaches. METHODS: Participants in the feasibility stage of the Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study (CHESS) (n = 130) completed measures three times during a 12-week prospective cohort study. Data quality, measurement acceptability, reliability, validity, responsiveness to change, and score interpretation were determined. Semi-structured cognitive interviews explored measurement relevance, acceptability, clarity, and comprehensiveness. RESULTS: Both measures were well completed with few missing items. The CHQLQ's inclusion of emotional wellbeing items increased its relevance to participant's experience of chronic headache. End effects were present at item level only for both measures. Structural assessment supported the three and one-factor solutions of the CHQLQ and HIT-6, respectively. Both the CHQLQ (range 0.87 to 0.94) and HIT-6 (0.90) were internally consistent, with acceptable temporal stability over 2 weeks (CHQLQ range 0.74 to 0.80; HIT-6 0.86). Both measures responded to change in headache-specific health at 12 weeks (CHQLQ smallest detectable change (improvement) range 3 to 5; HIT-6 2.1). CONCLUSIONS: While both measures are structurally valid, internally consistent, temporally stable, and responsive to change, the CHQLQ has greater relevance to the patient experience of chronic headache.Trial registration number: ISRCTN79708100. Registered 16th December 2015, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN79708100

    Measuring health-related quality of life in chronic headache:a comparative evaluation of the Chronic Headache Quality of Life Questionnaire and Headache Impact Test (HIT-6)

    Get PDF
    Objective: To compare the quality and acceptability of a new headache-specific patient-reported measure the Chronic Headache Quality of Life Questionnaire (CHQLQ), with the Headache Impact Test–6 item (HIT-6), in people meeting an epidemiological definition of chronic headaches.Methods: Participants in the feasibility stage of the Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study (CHESS) (N=130) completed measures three times during a 12-week prospective cohort study. Data quality, measurement acceptability, reliability, validity, responsiveness to change, and score interpretation were determined. Semi-structured cognitive interviews explored measurement relevance, acceptability, clarity, and comprehensiveness.Results: Both measures were well completed with few missing items. The CHQLQ’s inclusion of emotional wellbeing items increased its relevance to participant’s experience of chronic headache. End effects were present at item level only for both measures. Structural assessment supported the three and one-factor solutions of the CHQLQ and HIT-6, respectively. Both the CHQLQ (range 0.87 to 0.94) and HIT-6 (0.90) were internally consistent, with acceptable temporal stability over 2-weeks (CHQLQ range 0.74 to 0.80; HIT-6 0.86). Both measures responded to change in headache-specific health at 12-weeks (CHQLQ smallest detectable change (improvement) range 3 to 5; HIT-6 2.1). Conclusions: While both measures are structurally valid, internally consistent, temporally stable and responsive to change, the CHQLQ has greater relevance to the patient experience of chronic headache. <br/

    Accuracy of In Vivo Multimodal Optical Imaging for Detection of Oral Neoplasia

    Get PDF
    If detected early, oral cancer is eminently curable. However, survival rates for oral cancer patients remain low, largely due to late-stage diagnosis and subsequent difficulty of treatment. To improve cliniciansï¾’ ability to detect early disease and to treat advanced cancers, we developed a multimodal optical imaging system (MMIS) to evaluate tissue in situ, at macroscopic and microscopic scales. The MMIS was used to measure 100 anatomic sites in 30 patients, correctly classifying 98% of pathologically confirmed normal tissue sites, and 95% of sites graded as moderate dysplasia, severe dysplasia, or cancer. When used alone, MMIS classification accuracy was 35% for sites determined by pathology as mild dysplasia. However, MMIS measurements correlated with expression of candidate molecular markers in 87% of sites with mild dysplasia. These findings support the ability of noninvasive multimodal optical imaging to accurately identify neoplastic tissue and premalignant lesions. This in turn may have considerable impact on detection and treatment of patients with oral cancer and other epithelial malignancies

    A Core Outcome Set for Preventive Intervention Trials in Chronic and Episodic Migraine (COSMIG):an international, consensus-derived and multistakeholder initiative

    Get PDF
    Objective Typically, migraine prevention trials focus on reducing migraine days. This narrow focus may not capture all that is important to people with migraine. Inconsistency in outcome selection across trials limits the potential for data pooling and evidence synthesis. In response, we describe the development of core outcome set for migraine (COSMIG). Design A two-stage approach sought to achieve international, multistakeholder consensus on both the core domain set and core measurement set. Following construction of a comprehensive list of outcomes, expert panellists (patients, healthcare professionals and researchers) completed a three-round electronic-Delphi study to support a reduction and prioritisation of core domains and outcomes. Participants in a consensus meeting finalised the core domains and methods of assessment. All stages were overseen by an international core team, including patient research partners. Results There was a good representation of patients (episodic migraine (n=34) and chronic migraine (n=42)) and healthcare professionals (n=33) with high response and retention rates. The initial list of domains and outcomes was reduced from >50 to 7 core domains for consideration in the consensus meeting, during which a 2-domain core outcome set was agreed. Conclusion International and multistakeholder consensus emerged to describe a two-domain core outcome set for reporting research on preventive interventions for chronic and episodic migraine: migraine-specific pain and migraine-specific quality of life. Intensity of migraine pain assessed with an 11-point Numerical Rating Scale and the frequency as the number of headache/migraine days over a specified time period. Migraine-specific quality of life assessed using the Migraine Functional Impact Questionnaire

    Core outcome set for preventive intervention trials in chronic and episodic migraine (COSMIG): an international, consensus-derived and multistakeholder initiative

    Get PDF
    OBJECTIVE: Typically, migraine prevention trials focus on reducing migraine days. This narrow focus may not capture all that is important to people with migraine. Inconsistency in outcome selection across trials limits the potential for data pooling and evidence synthesis. In response, we describe the development of core outcome set for migraine (COSMIG). DESIGN: A two-stage approach sought to achieve international, multistakeholder consensus on both the core domain set and core measurement set. Following construction of a comprehensive list of outcomes, expert panellists (patients, healthcare professionals and researchers) completed a three-round electronic-Delphi study to support a reduction and prioritisation of core domains and outcomes. Participants in a consensus meeting finalised the core domains and methods of assessment. All stages were overseen by an international core team, including patient research partners. RESULTS: There was a good representation of patients (episodic migraine (n=34) and chronic migraine (n=42)) and healthcare professionals (n=33) with high response and retention rates. The initial list of domains and outcomes was reduced from >50 to 7 core domains for consideration in the consensus meeting, during which a 2-domain core outcome set was agreed. CONCLUSION: International and multistakeholder consensus emerged to describe a two-domain core outcome set for reporting research on preventive interventions for chronic and episodic migraine: migraine-specific pain and migraine-specific quality of life. Intensity of migraine pain assessed with an 11-point Numerical Rating Scale and the frequency as the number of headache/migraine days over a specified time period. Migraine-specific quality of life assessed using the Migraine Functional Impact Questionnaire
    • …
    corecore